>> schieffer: today on "face the nation," will they really let it happen? will political gridlock force us over the fiscal cliff and into a new recession with higher taxes for everyone? house speaker john boehner called it another wasted week. >> well, this isn't a progress report because there's no progress to report. > report. >> schieffer: the president won't budge. no deals unless it includes higher taxes on upper income people. >> we're going to have to see the rates on the top two percent go up. it's not me being stubborn. it's not me being partisan. >> schieffer: the president says it's math, but is it math or politics. we'll talk with former republican senator it alan simpson, and clinton white house chief of staff, erskine bowles, who chaired the first deficit

reduction commission. they're concerned about the dangers ahead. so concerned that simpson took to the dance floor to urge young people to get involved. we'll also get the take of rising democratic star cory booker, the mayor of newark. what's his answer to the washington gridlock? and is he planning a run for governor against chris christie. for analysis, we'll turn to joe klein of "time" magazine. "washington post" columnist michael gerson, and our own norah o'donnell and major garrett, our chief white house correspondent. it's all ahead on "face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news in washington, "face the nation" with bob schieffer. >> schieffer: good morning, again. well, to the famous combos of modern life, from mac and cheese, peanut butter and jelly, rum and coke, bread and butter,

and salt and pe pepper, add one more pair simpson-bowles. alan simpson may be in wyomingy and erskine bowles in north carolina but you can't mention one without think of the other. when you headed up the bipartisan deficit commission appointed by the president you laid out the dire consequences if we don't get the country back on a sound financial footing. the two sides are still at loggerheads. i guess i would start this morning by mr.-- and mr. bowles, why don't you go first-- is all this just posture or are they really going to let us go over this fiscal cliff? >> lord, i hope not, bob. i think it would be disastrous for the country if we did. you know, you can look at the forecast that we have, economic growth would slow, you know, by 4%. that, by definition, puts you back into recession when you're

only growing by 2%. about two million people would lose their jobs. unemployment would go to 9%. you know, you can already see the effects of it-- you look at businesses, they're slowing their head count by atricks they're saying they're going to have to lay people off. they're going to cut their capital expenditures. they're going to cult their investments. they're already holding cash. moody's and fitch have said they would lower our credit rating. that would cause our interest rate to go up. i don't think the stock market has facted on factored this in. i think it would be a disaster to go over the cliff. >> schieffer: what about you usenator simpson, would they really let this happen? >> when you have responsible leaders saying like this, i think it would help the democrats more if we go over the cliff. and then responsible republicans saying, i think it would help the republicans if we go off the

cliff, and the administration saying i think it would help the president if we go off the cliff, and as erskin says so beautifully, you know what that's like? that's like betting your country. there's something terribly bizarre and juvenile about that, to think your party comes ahead of your country. i don't goinar at all. >> schieffer: well, do you think, senator simpson, in the end, republicans are going to have to degree to higher tax rates for the upper income people? >> i think erskine and i both agree, if anybody out there who is-- quote-- rich doesn't think their taxes go up, the drinks are on me. heil cover it. >> schieffer: so you think they've got to do that. also, don't you think the democrats are going to have to agree to some entitlement reforms? >> sure, but you don't have to do the tax increase. you go into the tax code, and dig into those tax expenditures, but there's no time to do that. but, yes, i mean, the bizarre thing, not touching the

entitlements. the entitlements are the engine on the train driving us to the cliff. they were on automatic pilot. health care, it doesn't matter what you call it, is on automatic pilot responsible and it's going to squeeze out all the discretionary think about-- defense, r&d, research, all the things you love. erskine and i always say, what do you love? and they name something and we say forget it because this is wiping everything. it's just a destructive force. no cost containment till down the road. >> schieffer: sore erskine bowles, what this shea do, what is the next thing that should happen to get this result? >> i'm a little more encouraged than i would have been if you had asked me about it a week ago. we were going through the kabuki theater, one side making an offer and the other side rejecting it. that's natural in any deal. any time you have two guys in there tangoing you have a chance to get it done. first of all, most important

thing is if we're going to raise revenue and if we're going to raise it in any form, then we darn well better cut spending because spending is the biggest part of this problem, and the biggest part of that problem is the fact that health care is growing at a faster rate than g.d.p. i think we made some progress this week, bob. i'm more encouraged than i was-- let me tell you why. first of all, you know, the president has been clear that he's not going to support a deal that doesn't have an increase in tax ratees, but he came right back and said he also believed that he's got into get into negotiations with chairman camp, with senator bacchus, in order to broaden the base and simplify the code, and hopefully bring down rates next year. he said he's got flexibility on raising more money by cutting the entitlements. the speaker, i think this is a speaker who really gets it. he's put $800 billion worth of tax cuts on the table, but if you look at the offer he made

last week, that offer doesn't mention a thing about, you know, block granting medicaid. it doesn't have a word about premium supports. it doesn't have anything in there about the deep cuts in the income-support programs. so i think that vpses th advances the ball. you look at the people on the periphery, what they're saying. you have dick durbin, who is very close to the president, saying, he can live with means testing medicare. he said he doesn't like it, but he can live with it. that's high on the list of things that leader macomedy has said he's got to have to have a deal. and even nancy pelosi has said, look, this is not about rates. it's about revenue. it's about getting the money we need in order to reduce these deficits. so you've got to have spending cuts and you've got to have some revenue to get this done. >> schieffer: let me ask senator simpson. the "new york times" crunched numbers for the tax inn creases for the wealthy and determined

even if the rates go back up to the clinton-era rates it would only give us about a quarter of the needed revenue. so what other things can be done? what other taxes have to be raised or where do you get the money to get us to where we need to be? >> well, you go into the tax code, as i say, but it's going to take too much time to do that. but there is no possibility to do this, not a single economist who talked to us in our hearings, said we can't grow our way out of this thing if we had double-digit growth for 20 years. you can't cut spending your way out of this baby or you're going to are yo ruin a very fragile economy and an emerging and helpful nation and you can't tax your way out of this baby. this is impossible. and when these people zero in-- as erskine said they zero in on taxes, taxes, taxes, we said you've got revenue one to four, three times spending cuts versus one of revenue, but you go into the code and like this one, you

go to home mortgage interest deduction and the housing industry guys, all the lobbyists go nuts. we said, look, we're not going to take it away from you but it doesn't need to be a million buck on a second home. we said take it to 500,000, give everybody a 12.5% nonrefundable tax credit which helps the little guy. and they go, "oh, yeah, i guess that might work." everybody is in the game. this will be savagery, full-page ads, ladies, old charge, veterans, simpson-bowles are doing their tricks out there. hang on tight. it's going to be a real, real struggle. >> schieffer: let me just ask you, you caught a lot of people's attention, including ourselves last week, when you did this video on internet to try to get young people-- >> eskind, will you quit laughing. i can hear efers kin hear

erskine laughing. >> stop instagramming your breakfast and tweeting your first world problem and getting on youtube so you can see gangnam style. and start using those precious social media skills to sign people up on this baby. >> schieffer: all right, so what is-- >> it is great, isn't it? >> schieffer: what were you telling young people they need to be doing, senator? >> oh, oh, i'll tell you, i-- i don't want to drag erskine down into the deposition, into the pits of despair. >> i'm with you, pal. >> aarp and the senior groups in this country will have stripped the treasury dry in 30 years, and these young people can't figure it out. it's not because they want to. it's just the demographices, 10,000 a day turning 65, no anunc testing, no nothing.

a guy gets a heart operation for 200,000 bucks. he could buy your building and doesn't even get a bill. who is kidding who? i said to those young kids get off your can, and they invented the phrase-- they're tired of seeing the can kicked down the road because when they conflict can down the road they're the ones who are going to get it kicked right in the fanny. eskind and i tried to help them, so if this has helped them, and take on the sob sisters saying we're trying to ruin all the old people in america, get serious. if humor will do that, i think that's great. nobody has any humor in washington. there ain't none left. >> schieffer: mr. bowles, what are you saying to your party about the need for entitlement reform? that's where the resistance is coming from. it's coming from the democrates, not republicans. >> absolutely, bob. i love alan. he's an american treasure. but, look, even if you raise the

top rates back to the clinton rates, that only creates about $400 billion over 10 years. that's $40 billion a year. we have a tron dollar a year deficit. that aloneuent solve the problem. we have to cut spending. health care in this country, we spend twice as much on health care as any other developed nation, and that's whether it's percent of g.d.p. or on a per-capita base. we have to slow the growth of health care to the rate of the economy. the president put $350 billion worth of cuts on the table. that's not enough. we're going to have to do more. we may not like it. you know, we may wish we didn't. we simply made promises we can't keep. we've got to face up to it. and we've got to have a bold decision in order to make sure we put our fiscal house in order. >> schieffer: do you both-- and this is the last question-- do you honestly believe we're going to get some-- resolve this in some way by the end of the year, or will it go into next year?

senator simpson? >> well, i-- i-- i'm an optimist. i think they'll do, some but if they do small ball, that won't work. the markets aren't going to listen to that. but the horrible part about all this business is when you're addicted to debt, 16 trillion bucks and you're in the hole, 1 trillion, and the markets are going to jump in, and nobody will know when that is. the tipping point was always described by dick durbin, when will it happen? but when it happens, interest rates will go up, inflation will go up, and the guy that gets hurst the worst is the little guy. what hypocrisy, what fakery. >> schieffer: mr. bowles? >> they absolutely can do it. if they don't do it, shame on them. >> schieffer: thank you both for being with us this morning. we'll be back in one empty to talk to cory booker.

>> schieffer: we're back with one of the rising stars, according to democrats, of their party, and that is newark mayor cory booker. mr. mayor, let's just pick up on what we heard from erskine bowles and alan simpson. what are your constituents talking about? what are they telling you about this? how does this look from outside washington? >> well, i think there's an immediate fear. there are a lot of people, a couple of thousand dollars, which most americans will see their tax goes up, if we don't do something about this. for many families, not only in my city, but across our state, a couple of thousands dollars could be the difference between making that mortgage payment, being able to afford food and making critical investments during every month. the desire for washington to figure this out, and not to cause more harm, like they did during the last debt ceiling debate is absolutely krusk. this is not time for the

republicans to hold the country hostage again, really at this point, holding it hostage to protect a couple of percent of our population. >> schieffer: well, i mean, the democrats -- there's got to be some give in there from democrats as well? >> i think you're absolutely right. something frightening to me mee which the two gentlemen mentioned. i have seen health care costs mushroom in this country and have seen the impact on the community like mine. it is projected to go to 20% of g.d.p. we have to do things controlling these costs, or forget event next 10, 20 years we'll see america's global economic decline. they're absolutely right about the urgency. but i think the president really has a balanced approach to this. we have to get through this current challenge we're in. zitranquil economy. this is not a time for draconian cut. that will undermine the economic growth in the long term. this is not a time to be penny eyes and pound-foolish. we just sought worst natural disaster to come through new jersey in a very long time. and it really exposed how

vulnerable and h1n1 prepared our infrastructure is in this country. and you have storm systems and even heavy rainfalls right now are causes incredible economic damage. to not invest the pennies now to asset dollars later is also a bad thing to do. we've got to start getting back to a balance sheet analysis of our economy. things like social security and health care, we have to make sure we're bringing in the revenue we need and controlling and cutting costs and steering this delicate ship out of this recession, back to strong economic growth in america. >> schieffer: mr. mayor, let me ask you about this experiment, as it were, that you have embarked on over last week, and that is you went out and what, bought, $30 worth of food at the grocery store, and this is what people on food stamps, this is all the money they would have tow buy food if they were on if food stamps. and you decided you'd do that and just see if you could live on for a week. how is it going? >> this is one of the programs right now the house is proposing

to cut dramatically. the senator and the president are trying to protect it because 46 million americans benefit from food stamps. veterans, over a million victims were benefit. there are some military families, people with disabled children, families with kids, working families. and what we don't understand is we often vilify or denigrate folks. they're using a small amount of money to bridge them out of poverty or bridge them out of food insecurity. and so in a debate on twitter over social media, i was talking about why don't we do this ourselves, just really see how this program works. and i'll tell you what, my modest brush-- i'm done with this in a week, but again, millions of americans, this is their daily challenge is finding a way to get access to healthy, nutritional foods. for me it's been very difficult. i'll be honest with you. i take so much for granted. even going to starbucks and buying a cup of coffee is more than my daily food alowps right now. we really need to expose the problems on a national level by denigrating programs that

empower our country in the long run but preparing our children to learn and succeed. we can do things locally by expanding access to healthy foods, more local low grown produce. >> schieffer: tell me, for example, what do you eat in one day? what did you eat yesterday? >> at $1.fowrt a meal. i had an apple federal breakfast. i bermuda a sweet potato and couldn't go out and buy another one because it wasn't on my budget so i cut around the burned part and had a sweet potato around lurch time and made a casserole with broccoli, cauliflower, beans, and peas and nursed that over a couple hours. i found i could stave off hunger if i ate a spoonful and came back to it. it's been very challenging. >> schieffer: i know europe a coffee drinker. have you been able to drink coffee? >> no, i'm thoroughly uncalfinated right now. and it's a terrible state of human existence. i don't see how people do it. look, this has been a difficulty for me for just one week but it's a reality for americans for

months at a time. i have a social media platform called waywire, where people are posting their own experiences on this, which-- and a really amazing testimony from americans. this is a daily reality. so in this time in our country where we see a decoupling between economic growth creating wealth for some but a real decoupling as wages decline. you have families whose wage wages have frozen or dropping, still working the same amount of hours, working 22 jobs and still find themselves dependent on programs like food stamps and snap, and if we cut these programs we cast them into food insecurity, which does have a long-term deleterious effect on our economy, especially as we send kids to school nutritionally unfit to learn and military families who sacrifice so much for us and veterans coming home. >> schieffer: we do need to take little politics. are you thinking about running against chris christie for governor? >> yeah, i am absolutely considering running for govern

governor, as well as giving other options some consideration. i'll be focused on that the next week to 10 days or so and really come up with a decision that answers my basic question which is where do i believe-- and hopefully later the voters will agree with me-- where can i make the biggest difference for the city i love and the nation i pledged my life to. >> schieffer: when do you think you will make a final decision? >> it has to be in the next few weeks. especially in new jersey, there are a lot of very good candidates for governor in new jersey on the democratic side and i have to give my party and be a part of my party's push forward, whether me as a candidate or supporting other candidates for that office. >> schieffer: if you decide not to run for governor, is there any chance you might run for another office, say senate, for example? >> yeah, i'm actually, look at that a lot as well, and trying to get back. life, ultimately, is not about a position. it's about a purpose. and my purpose they try to focus on every single day is how can i make a difference in the world around me in the community around me? i'm thinking about both offices

right now and which one can i better serve on the issues i'm passionate about anded the things they feel driven to contribute to. >> schieffer: all right, well, governor, i hope you'll get to have a cup of cove here before too much longer. >> you just made a bad mistake that might get me in trouble, but thank you very much. >> schieffer: i'll be right back with personal thoughts about a missed opportunity in the senate this week. all energy development comes with some risk, but proven technologies allow natural gas producers to supply affordable, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today.

tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 at schwab, we're committed to offering you tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 low-cost investment options-- tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 like our exchange traded funds, or etfs tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 which now have the lowest tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 operating expenses tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 in their respective tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 lipper categories. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 lower than spdr tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and even lower than vanguard. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 that means with schwab, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 your portfolio has tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 a better chance to grow. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and you can trade all our etfs online, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 commission-free, from your schwab account. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so let's talk about saving money, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with schwab etfs. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 schwab etfs now have the lowest operating expenses tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 in their respective lipper categories. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-800-4schwab tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 or visit schwab.com tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 to open an account today. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 funding is easy tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with schwab mobile deposit. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 investors should consider tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 carefully information d#: 1-800-345-2550 contained in the prospectus, d#: 1-800-345-2550 cluding investment objectives, d#: 1-800-345-2550 risks, charges, and expenses. d#: 1-800-345-2550 you can obtain tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 a prospectus by visiting d#: 1-800-345-2550 w.schwab.com/schwabetfs. please read the prospectus tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 carefully before investing. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550

>> schieffer: someone asked me the other day has washington changed? and i said were you around when they passed the americans with disabilities act in 1990.

it passed overwhelmingly ending discrimination in the workplace and opening access to the disabled to public buildings. when george bush signed it into law, it made you proud, whether you were a democrat or republican, a politician or one of the rest of us. >> this historic act is the world's first comprehensive declaration of equality for people with disabilities. >> schieffer: but that was then, and this is now. >> the resolution for ratification is not agreed to. >> schieffer: partisanship runs so deep when an international treaty that callologist other countries to provide the same right to their disabled came to the senate for ratification, conservative republicans blocked it, blocked it despite a dramatic appeal by 89-year-old former republican leader bob dole, himself a disabled world war ii veteran. and even though their usual allies the chamber of commerce and veterans groups wanted it.

opponents gave various reasons, arguing the treaty might prevent parents from home schooling. it doesn't. i didn't hear many say, though, how proud blocking it made them feel. some just seemed embarrassed. has washington changed? maybe i'm wrong, but in bob dole's day, i think senators would have found a way to get it done. back in a minute. for an idea. a grand idea called america. the idea that if you work hard, if you have a dream, if you work with your neighbors... you can do most anything. this led to other ideas like liberty and rock 'n' roll. to free markets, free enterprise, and free refills. it put a man on the moon and a phone in your pocket. our country's gone through a lot over the centuries and a half.

but this idea isn't fragile. when times get tough, it rallies us as one. every day, more people believe in the american idea and when they do, the dream comes true. we're grateful to be a part of it. bp has paid overthe people of bp twenty-threeitment to the gulf. billion dollars to help those affected and to cover cleanup costs.

today, the beaches and gulf are open, and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. and bp's also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. >> schieffer: and some of our stations are leaving us now, but for most of of you we'll be right back with our political panel. so stay with us on "face the nation."

>> schieffer: welcome back to "face the nation." on page two now, we're going to try to make sense of all of this going on about the fiscal cliff, which may show we're not very smart to start with because i'm not sure any of it makes any sense. laugh we'll try to straightep it out with joik of "time" magazine. michael gerson of the "washington post." cbs this morning cohort norah o'donnell. and we'd especially like to welcome our new chief white house correspondent, major garrett. major what's going on over there, anything new? >> bob, i deeply regret i have no news, but i have a story and the story will have to substitute for news. i was conversing this morning, as i do every morning, with the white house about is anything going on? is anyone of importance talking to anyone else on capitol hill of%? and i was given the same nonresponsive answer i get daily "lines of communication are

open." finally getting sick of that i said, look, the lines of communication were open during the cold war, too." and i thought that was an extravagant over-the-top comment. >> and the other side said, yes the cold war ended when one side realized they couldn't win. so i think we're on a cold war footing right now. >> schieffer: what do you think, joe? what's happening, anything? >> not all that much, but also, i think that this is-- this has been an over-hyped situation from the start. you know, we have a serious long-term deficit problem in this country. we don't have a long-term deficit crisis. i think that we're going to be able-- that they're going to make a deal. i mean, that's what politicians do. the republicans lost the election. they know they're going to have to raise revenues. but i think the over-hyping of deficits, the deficit mania that seized this town, is kind of crazy. i mean, i love alan simpson and erskine bowles, but they're talking about inflation at a

moment when people are paying us money to invest in our treasury bonds. you know, the summer before last, when we had the debt ceiling negotiations, and everybody was saying oh, our credit is about to go down the tubes. the price of u.s. treasury bonds were going up. so the fact is that we have a problem. i'm hoping that we'll deal with it, especially, you know, the old age entitlementes, because sooner or later, you and i are going to be old enough to qualify for medicare, and we're going to at the present time to be a good system. but we i think a little rationality is called for. >> schieffer: you're saying it's not as bad as it seems. the fact of the matter swhen the bush tax cuts run out at the end of the year, when payroll tax-- whatever they call it, runs out at the end of the year, people's taxes are going to go up. they may not be a crisis for some of the upper income folk but if you're down the line there, that's a big deal.

>> and i fully believe that's going to be taken care of. but if you remember, when the clinton tax cuts-- tax rates were imposed in 1993, martin felledsteen, you know, a very substantial economist, wrote an op-ed in the "with the journal" that day predicting we were going into a deep recession pause of the tax rates. we went into a big boom. we're tingering on the edges here of a massive economy. >> schieffer: michael? >> everybody knows the conversation needs to take place. speaker boehner calling the president saying i'll give some on rates. you have to give some on structural eltitlement reforms. the problem is, it's the president who sets the groundwork for that discussion. and right now republicans think the president's undermining that possible conversation by an unreasonable first setef demands, procedural changes that would make them irrelevant. the art of the deal involves giving people a soft place to

land. and right now, republicans aren't seeing a soft place to land. their only option is humiliation in this process, and they're increasingly thinking that the president sees victory at the bottom of the fiscal cliff. >> but remember where we were when we last had this debate between the speaker and the president and the president and the white house feels like they were humiliated by speaker boehner when he wouldn't return his own phone calls. that's part of what's going on here is the lack of trust. but, look, as soon as what president obama wants is speaker boehner say he's going to give on the tax rates. as soon as that happens it will unlock everything else. the white house says boehner knows they will be willing to make structural reform to entitlements and take on his own party on that matter, but they want that concession from boehner about the rates. and you saw boehner walk right up to the line on friday by suggesting maybe it could go from 35 to 37 or give a little bit. they tried to walk that back. as soon as that conservation happens, that will unlock everything. >> schieffer: can speaker

boehner deliver the votes in his caucus if in fact he makes a deal? >> i don't think he that's say it. high doesn't have to say it out loud. s that's thing. he needs to signal it in some way and then you'll have a two-stage process. they'll do the fiscal cliff stuff and tax reform by august 1 of next year. >> but the speaker so far has not had a rebellion underneath him. he has said things that continue to move in this direction without a rebellion. here's what happened oned with. the president called speaker boehner, my congressional add aides are going to meet with your people. what ron neighbors said tell us what you want after you agree to rates. the white house thought that was an accommodating conversation. the republicans interpreted that as seeking their humiliation. so even within the contours of conversations that are direct and face to face, there are wildly differing interpretations. >> republicans, by the way, know if boehner crosses that bridge, that it could be immediately leaped and get a democratic victory dance on rates without

really getting serious on the other side. that's what the lack of trust causes in this process. >> schieffer: i guess in the final analysis, nothing is going to happen until the last minute of the last hour, though, it seems to me. >> and the closer we get to that, the smaller this becomes. by definition. you have to ride it small. it can only be digested quickly. the longer we wait and the closer we get the smaller the scope of the deal is. >> schieffer: i want to-- we can get back to this-- i want to ask you about some of the other things that happened this week. this idea that jim demint, who was the conservative, the tea party hero, as it were, announce he's not even going to finish out his term as the senator from south carolina. he's going to take a job at the heritage foundation. michael what, do you think, as a conservative, what are the implications of this? >> well, he was always more of an activist than a legislator. his colleagues sometimes resented him because he supported primary opponents

against them. maybe of his republican senate colleagues resented that. but i think this is mainly a problem for the conservative movement and conservative think tank. republicans are going to have to enter a period right now of rethinking on major issues, on immigration, on economic policy, on social mobility. and the heritage foundation is one of those major think tanks is turning to someone who is not particularly inclined to this process. the tea party hero, somebody that's intolerant of dissent when it comes these issues. i think that's a very bad sign for the conservative movement. they need something that they seem to be turning away from in key ways. >> well, one other thing that struck me about it, bob, this move signals that one of the political elements will of the heritage foundation may be enlarging its focus. heritage fund for america, which is a political arm of a think tank. now, that hasn't been there before. the center for american politics on left has both, a think tank and a political arm.

now heritage is beefing up the political side of its think tankery. that seems a structural difference in washington, one that makes conservatism not just about ideas and the conaccept the of thinking about government but putting a political agitating force beside it. it may not be good for the conservative movement but it is a change. >>ic it's sad. i remember heritage is where obamacare came from. the idea of an individual mandate came from student butler from the merge heritage foundation. we're at the moment where interesting thinking is happening among younger conservativees, on a lot of the social issues bedelving us, like health care. i don't know that jim demint is all that interested in that kind of stuff. >> schieffer: what about, norah, the republican party in general? where does it go from here? it got beat when all the indicators suggested they should have won this election, if you just went by the economic indicatores, and all of that, and yet, president obama won. >> well, look at all the-- those

who are leading the republican ticket, presumably, for 2016, whether it's rubio, ryan, jeb bush, all of them acknowledge that the party has got to change to some degree, and especially rubio and bush, conditionalling the need to attack on issues like immigration, to speak to middle class voters. there is an acknowledgment they will change, and bobby jindal as well. the question is whether the congress will be able to go along and present some legislative victories. certainly, the republican governors are proud of their work in the state. but in terms of congress, so we'll see. immigration reform, once they get through the fiscal cliff, by all wantch objects there could be movement on that in the new year. >> schieffer: all right. we're going to take a break right here and when we come back we'll talk about all this and some other stuff going on in washington. twins. i didn't see them coming. i have obligations. cute obligations, but obligations.

i need to rethink the core of my portfolio. what i really need is sleep. introducing the ishares core, building blocks for the heart of your portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal. >> schieffer: we're back now

with our panel. joe klein, let's get back to something else that happened this week in the senate that shows this is kind of a different place than it once was and i talked about this in my commentary. this is turning down the treato disabilities, which really didn't have all that much impact in this country but it just called on other countries to provide the access and the nondiscrimination that the disabled have. >> it was an outsourcing of american values to the rest of the world. >> schieffer: yes. >> but interesting thing to me about that vote -- and it goes back to what we were talking about before with the future of the republican party-- it wasn't just hard-line conservatives who voted against this. yet, people who were moderates, like saxby chambliss, who talked about raising ref news, and lamar alexander from tennessee, and lindsey graham, who is often a moderate on issuees, been a moderate on climate change-- all three of them voted against this treaty. why? because all three of them are likely to face tea party

primaries in 2014. and i think that, that-- you know, that bloodbath hasn't ended within the republican party. we're going to see at least another cycle of it. >> schieffer: let's talk about the more immediate things, and that is the next obama administration. one of the things that strikes me, and you brought it up in the green room a while ago, joe, we have not seen the administration nominate anybody. >> anybody. >> schieffer: to any office here. we're a month into-- after the election, and we've had all the controversy over susan rice, and who know where's tha that is? what's happening? what's going on here? >> well, the administration is, as it says, studying all its options. what it's trying to figure out a way if in fact it wants to make the susan rice fight which is visually going to be a difficult fight, and if it does, how hard will it fight and how far is it willing to push? there are those who argue, look, if you put cbs news rice in the

national security council and i will put senator kennedy up-- >> kerry. >> senator kerry from the senate up to nominate for secretary of state. the problem with that is tom donnell and the existing national security adviser doesn't want to leave and has no intention of going. that's complicated math inside the white house, and for the administration. all the other positions, the thought is, jacques lugar goes to treasury, to replace secretary geithner, but who would replace him as chief of staff. >> tom donelan. >> the final decisions haven't been made and there are a lot of pieces on the chess board. >> schieffer: is this because of the fiskal cliff thing that is gog that they haven't focused on who is going to serve? >> they don't want to pick a fight with capitol hill. it will be something they have to deal with because people want to leave in the new term. and certainly, secretary of state hillary which the has long signaled she is only going to serve one term as secretary of state. and we see on the front page of the "new york times" today a big piece by jody kantor, what is next for hillary clinton, and

whether she is a front-runner in 2016. the "washington post" had a poll nashows hillary's favorability is atap all-time high. they're going to have to start putting some names out there. >> schieffer: do you think she'll run, michael? >> i think she would have a consider support of the party. i think she has a history of being interested. i think there's a lot to commend this, as a prospect. but i do think on the previous point that the preoccupation with the fiscal as soon as just dominating everything else. and, you know, the stakes are high for the president. if he got in a plan for long-term fiscal constraint and did immigration, these would be some large, historical achievementes, things that any president of the united states would be proud of. if the system collapses, and we can't achieve category because of politics, that's it going to be a tremendously bad start for his term. the stakes are high for him >> and it would cast a shadow on the remainder of the second term

and his legacy would be of partisanship. health care and the financial reform were largely democratic. there would be no large, structural, bipartisan efforts by this white house. >> it wouldn't abe picnic for the republicans. they're going to get blamed per of for this. when i go out in the country and i spend a lot of time out there, people are just sick of the kind of games. they just want to see it get done. and i think that-- i mean, there's an outline that's there, that's pretty obvious about where we have to go. the president has proposed $1.6 trillion, the republicans have proposed $800 billion. 1.2 trillion is right in the middle. ( laughter ) and we all know that the health care system has to be addressed. there are ways to do it. some of which paul ryan suggested. you know, ryan's plan for medicare is exactly the same as obamacare. i mean, if people would just stop being so oppositional.

and sat down and make the kind of deal you were talking about before. it was interesting to see bob dole on the floor, and george h.w. bush in the-- in hospital this week. these were giants. that was a republican party that came up with a lot of really creative ideas and got things done. >> schieffer: well, you know, this used to be-- and maybe it's things always look larger in the rearview mirror. most of the time they look smaller in the rearview mirror in reality. but it seems here, they look larger in the rearview mirror. and you just wonder has-- has this generation of politicians simply forgoalpost ho forgotten how to negotiate, forgoalpost how to get things done? in the age of the new media is it impossible to do things the way you do them. that is you have friends across party lines. and you talk after work, and you work out things. you find out who needs what.

now, nobody seems to know anybody. nobody seems to know what the other guy needs. they put out these tweets. they put out these press releases. they put out these photo opportunities, but shoe or another they never get around talking to one another. >> the idea is positioning presages an outcome. if you win the positioning battle eventually you get to governing. when i got to washington in 1990, not as early about some of us at the table, people were about governing first and positions our way to the governing outcome. now if you position yourself maybe you can goch without the underlying assumption we're going to govern and ultimately will get something done. >> and the budget's a particular problem because if democrats get what they want-- tax increases on the wealthy-- they can crow about it in public. if republicans get what they want, which is structural changes in medicare, they it are doing this for fiscal reasons. that means this entitlement reform never gets done unless

the profit united states gives cover to people and says we're going to all jump together. and that is what i think republicans are questioning whether that's-- >> he's on the record. he was willing to do that in negotiations with boehner in 2011. he's willing to even think about raising the age of eligibility for medicare. he was willing, if the republicans would have played on obamacare, to give them malpractice reform. >> he's not leading on it. >> well, i mean, you know, he's no, on it. and i think that every time the president makes an initial proposal, republicans squeal and say it's of-- it's negotiating. and i think that negotiation is going on now. and if they're smart-- i know this is a real leap if of when it comes to this congress-- if they're smart, they'll get it done in the next week. >> schieffer: major, all the problems are not here at home. there are pretty big ones building overseas. this whole syria mess. ones where this thing is going.

what's the latest on that. >> the feeling in the administration is they're gathering intelligence information on an hourly basis to try to figure out what's happening to the stockpiles of chemical weapons. with they being mixed, moved, is there anything of dire immediate consequence about that? there is a report in the "sunday london time "there is a convert operation to take arms from libya. the united states is okay with that, to give it to the opposition. the position of the u.s. government has not changed. they will not directly or indirectly arm the opposition in libya or anywhere else. the sense is, this is on an hour-to-hour basis and the immediate danger for not only the syrian civilians but the fate of the assad government is a top concern for the administration. >> schieffer: as tragic as all this is, isn't the real problem knowing who to aid? i mean, we say we want to aid those that are opposing assad, but we don't know who some of these people are. some of them we know where al qaeda. >> right. that has long been the white

house worry about arming the different opposition groups, some who are al qaeda. i think what we're seeing here is the president laid out-- he said any moving of chemical weapons would be a red line. if they're moving chemical weapons are we at the red line for the president? his rhetoric shaved both the this issue in terms of when the u.s. will engage. the bright spot for this administration on syria is secretary of state hillary clinton meeting with the russian foreign minister, and it look likes will the russians are willing to move. and the ultimate outcome, bob, is not going to be military involvement. it's going to be getting the russians to get assad out of there. >> syria is different from any of these other problems we've had in the middle east because 95 year ago or so, a bunch of europeans drew straight-lean borders until sand in the middle east and called them countries. they're not really countries. when assad goes, as he probably will, there are kurds up in the north there are sunnis who might want to join with the sunnies in

iraq. and i think that we're comes to a very, very difficult period in the middle east, far more difficult than last couple of years because we're going to see whether these countries actually are countries. >> schieffer: and isn't one of the real problems here, michael, is when we talk about these chemical weapons, maybe not so much that assad might use those on his own people but somehow in this chaos, that al qaeda, some of these other people, might get control of one of these things. >> but this is one of the concerns. the critics of administration policy on this say we evaporate beewe haven't been active enough and all that's results would happen-- you would have destabilization of the secretion humanitarian problems. they have all happened. the fact that america wasn't more engaged earlier and actively in this process i think was probably a mistake. >> we can't assume that western powers like the united states any more in an age of twitter and facebook and all the rest are going to be able to dictate

results in these countries once again. i think that our diplomacy could be a little bit more subtle-- supple, but i really think that these people are going to have to make decisions about who they are and what countries they want to have. >> schieffer: i'll tell you one thing strikes me, i think all of us are going to be able to find work over the next 12 months. i think there's going to be plenty of thanks-- >> speaking for mierkz bob, that's very good news. >> schieffer: i guess there is some bright side to these clouds of doom that we see. well, i want to thank all of you for coming by this morning. it's a lot of fun to go over some of this stuff. i'll be back in a moment with some of the lighter moments will of the last week. stay with us.

oh, let me guess --ou see this? more washington gridlock. no, it's worse -- look, our taxes are about to go up. not the taxes on our dividends though, right? that's a big part of our retirement. oh, no, it's dividends, too. the rate on our dividends would more than double. but we depend on our dividends to help pay our bills. we worked hard to save. well, the president and congress have got to work together to stop this dividend tax hike. before it's too late.

>> schieffer: finally for our "face the nation" flash back today we didn't have to flash very far back. just a couple of nights last week because the fiscal cliff had the comics on a roll. >> we have good news and we have bad news! first, the bad news, it is just

tweet days until the fiscal cliff deadline. the good news, only 17 days the mayans say we're all going to die so who cares about the fiscal cliff! exactly. >> we would like to announce we have reached an agreement to avoid a fiscal cliff. in order to get the support of the speaker, i agree there will be no tax increases. i repeat, zero tax increases. now, why would i do that? i mean, i won the election. ( laughter ) i have the leverage. why give in? well, simply put-- i felt sorry for this man. >> is there a prospect for a deal? >> there's not a prospect for a deal. >> of course! it. >> the ongoing talks. >> there aren't even very many talks going on. ( laughter ) >> you're kidding us! give us something! >> but for the first time, there are numbers on pieces of paper

from both sides. >> numbers on paper! ( cheers and applause ) ( laughter ) >> schieffer: that is our "face the nation" flashback. one note to major garrett. major, i was here 10 years before people thought i was important enough, and you are off to a fine start. >> thank you, bob, thank you very much. bp has paid over twenty-three billion dollars to help those affected and to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open, and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. and bp's also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger.

in the people, businesses, and organizations that call greater washington home. whether it's funding an organization that provides new citizens with job training, working with an anacostia school that promotes academic excellence, or supporting an organization that serves 5,000 meals a day across d.c., what's important to the people of greater washington is important to us, and we're proud to work with all those who are making our communities stronger.

>> schieffer: and that's it for us today. we want to thank you for joining us here on facethe flags. and we'll see you here next week. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org this